D&D 5E An issue with the Tavern Brawler feat

[ccooke]

Now, I really like this feat. It's fun, it's thematic... and it has a little bit of an issue I only spotted this morning.

The feat gives you, among other things, proficiency with Improvised Weapons.

The rules have this to say about improvised weapons:

In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

This seems pretty clear to me: If I'm proficient with a greatclub, I could use a greatsword as one and get proficiency. That's without a feat.

With the Tavern Brawler feat, you're proficient with all improvised weapons. That has to be better than what you could do without the feat - so it should be better than the above excerpt from the basic rules. Does that mean, then, that the Tavern Brawler feat therefore gives you proficiency with all martial melee weapons? Well, effectively it does.

The cost of using a weapon you are not proficient with is that you do not get to add your proficiency bonus to your hit roll. That's it. You can use all the properties of the weapon regardless - reach, versatile, thrown, finesse. You are able to attempt anything you like with the weapon, you just aren't as good with it. Therefore, the proficiency granted by the Tavern Brawler feat should not, in ruling, be worse than what you can do without the feat. Players who pick up an unfamiliar weapon, without any feats or proficiency, have the choice of using the weapon as something they are proficient in (and thus losing access to whatever special features the real weapon has that the thing they're using it as does not - for instance, you could use a halberd as a greatclub, but you would presumably lose the benefit of reach while doing so. With multiple attacks, you could treat the weapon as a greatclub (and get proficiency) in one attack and as a halberd (and get reach, but no proficiency) in another. That's all fine by the basic rules.

The only way to make the proficiency granted by Tavern Brawler be better than what the basic, unmodified rules give you is to assume that Tavern Brawler grants you proficiency with all melee weapons, martial or otherwise.

The issue, then, is what that does to the Weapon Master feat, which gives you +1 to STR or DEX and proficiency in any four weapons. This suddenly does not compare well to Tavern Brawler, which gives you +1 to STR or CON, proficiency with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes, a bonus to unarmed damage (from 1 point to 1d4) and the ability to grapple as a bonus action when you hit with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike.

After some thought, I'm probably going to rule that the feat allows you to use any one or two handed weapon, or any weapon with the versatile property. It does not provide you with the ability to use any other property of the weapon - if you try to use the finesse, thrown, reach or any special properties, you get no proficiency bonus doing so... and ask the players not to take the piss. It helps that many characters planning to take the Tavern Brawler feat will already have access to a lot of martial weapons, I guess.

What do people think?

 

[ranger69]

It also says at DM's option. As a DM I would not allow this feat to be applied to a natural or manufactured weapon. I would allow it to be used on things such as tankards, chairs and other items that are not normally weapons, but being improvised as such. I believe that this is the intent of the feat. However, so long as everybody is happy with a different interpretation at their game then that is fine also.

 

[ccooke]

It also says at DM's option. As a DM I would not allow this feat to be applied to a natural or manufactured weapon. I would allow it to be used on things such as tankards, chairs and other items that are not normally weapons, but being improvised as such. I believe that this is the intent of the feat. However, so long as everybody is happy with a different interpretation at their game then that is fine also.

I get into a bind with this one.

The basic (non-Tavern Brawler) improvised weapon rules say that if you're wielding something that is similar to an actual weapon, you can treat it as the actual weapon. The rules also say that if you're proficient with something that's similar to the thing you're wielding, the GM can allow you to treat it as the thing you're proficient in.

I take that to mean that the rules entirely support me saying "Sure, you don't know how to use a greatsword, but you know how to use a greatclub. You can use it as a greatclub that does slashing damage, if you like, and get proficiency".

The problem is, where is the dividing line between something that looks like a greatsword and something that is a greatsword? Because the way the Tavern Brawler feat interacts with the improvised weapon rules would allow a character without proficiency with a greatsword to use something that looked like a greatsword as a greatsword with proficiency... but the same character would not be able to use an actual greatsword with proficiency.

This is clearly a ridiculous situation, but it's the end result of the rules

After some discussion elsewhere, I've come to the conclusion that the best way to rule it is to say that when a character with the Tavern Brawler feat uses a weapon they are not otherwise proficient in, they can get the full damage from it (ie: They do not have to treat a greatsword as a greatclub) and add their proficiency, but only if they make no use of the reach or finesse properties and treat versatile as two handed.

Basically, Tavern Brawler gets you the simplest melee usage of the weapon but not the uses that would actually require training with that specific weapon.

 

[Leugren]

The benefits of Tavern Brawler seem just fine as is. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that all or even most improvised weapons are similar enough to actual weapons that the DM is going to automatically grant you a proficiency bonus with them and let you use them just like the actual weapons that they correspond to. In fact. there a lot of improvised weapons that are not like actual weapons, including throwing a flask of acid/alchemist's fire/oil in someone's face, stabbing someone with an arrow, tossing a plate at someone's head frisbee style, etc. The Tavern Brawler feat lets you use your proficiency bonus with all of these improvised weapons. Combined with the other benefits that the Tavern Brawler feat provides, I don't think it needs any adjustment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Rune]

The basic (non-Tavern Brawler) improvised weapon rules say that if you're wielding something that is similar to an actual weapon, you can treat it as the actual weapon. The rules also say that if you're proficient with something that's similar to the thing you're wielding, the GM can allow you to treat it as the thing you're proficient in.

I take that to mean that the rules entirely support me saying "Sure, you don't know how to use a greatsword, but you know how to use a greatclub. You can use it as a greatclub that does slashing damage, if you like, and get proficiency"

Sure, the rules support you making any ruling you like, but I don't think the rule you are referencing specifically supports your conclusion.

It seems clear to me that the intent is to equate two functionally identical objects being used as weapons. The benchmark, then, is "do these two things function the same way?"

In the case of a chair leg being used as a club, the answer is yes. In the case of a greatsword being used as a greatclub, the answer is clearly no; they do not resemble each other in balance or form and, therefor, cannot function identically.

Basically, Tavern Brawler gets you the simplest melee usage of the weapon but not the uses that would actually require training with that specific weapon.

The best part of tavern brawler is the bonus action grapple. Especially for monks. Grappling is no joke in this edition. Everything else the feat gives you is just gravy.

 

[ccooke]

Sure, the rules support you making any ruling you like, but I don't think the rule you are referencing specifically supports your conclusion.

It seems clear to me that the intent is to equate two functionally identical objects being used as weapons. The benchmark, then, is "do these two things function the same way?"

In the case of a chair leg being used as a club, the answer is yes. In the case of a greatsword being used as a greatclub, the answer is clearly no; they do not resemble each other in balance or form and, therefor, cannot function identically.

Except that the rules say otherwise.
The rules explicitly say that if an object resembles an actual weapon, it can be treated as that weapon.
The rules also say that "At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus."

I'm saying that if a character without proficiency picks up a greatsword and asks me how they can use it, then I would say: "Well, you can use it as a greatsword, but you don't get to add your proficiency bonus to it. You're proficient with simple weapons, though, so I guess you could pretend that it's a sharpened club - you can use your proficiency, but you'll only do 1d8 damage because you're treating it as a two-handed club".

Now, this relies on GM discretion - you might decide that a greatsword can't be used as a club. I happen to disagree with you, but both of these are rulings. The rules themselves support both our interpretations. My point in this thread is that this creates an interaction that could cause the Tavern Brawler to be used in an overly broad manner at the table, and thus spending a while thinking about it now and getting an interpretation of the feat that's good but not too good could save a lot of stress sometime later, when some player makes assumptions.

The best part of tavern brawler is the bonus action grapple. Especially for monks. Grappling is no joke in this edition. Everything else the feat gives you is just gravy.

Yeah, I love grappling and shoving in 5e. Pretty well balanced, extremely useful and they give martial characters stuff they can reliably do in combat that isn't just attacking.

 

[CapnZapp]

With the Tavern Brawler feat, you're proficient with all improvised weapons. That has to be better than what you could do without the feat - so it should be better than the above excerpt from the basic rules. Does that mean, then, that the Tavern Brawler feat therefore gives you proficiency with all martial melee weapons? Well, effectively it does.

Wait, what?

 

[ccooke]

The benefits of Tavern Brawler seem just fine as is. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that all or even most improvised weapons are similar enough to actual weapons that the DM is going to automatically grant you a proficiency bonus with them and let you use them just like the actual weapons that they correspond to. In fact. there a lot of improvised weapons that are not like actual weapons, including throwing a flask of acid/alchemist's fire/oil in someone's face, stabbing someone with an arrow, tossing a plate at someone's head, etc. The Tavern Brawler feat lets you use your proficiency bonus with all of these improvised weapons. Combined with the other benefits that the Tavern Brawler feat provides, I don't think it needs any adjustment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

No, my point is that the way the Tavern Brawler feat and the Improvised weapons rules are written, there is an unintended interaction that opens up the Tavern Brawler feat to being exploited in ways that were not intended.

I am absolutely happy with the Tavern Brawler feat doing its intended job, and I'm not labouring under any assumptions about its use (The most common improvised weapon in the games I run is "the bodies of the opposing force, dead or alive". My wife's barbarian is basically optimised to throw people, whether they like it or not).

I can solve this problem myself by simply saying "Don't take the piss", because I have a good group. But that does not mean that the rules do not interact in a way that is, by a reasonable reading, exploitable.

 

[ranger69]

As both a player and a DM I see people trying to exploit the rules to their characters advantage. I am also guilty of this. However, especially with DM's hat on, I always bear in mind what a character can do in exploiting the rules, then NPC's can use that also. Therefore if you go into the roughest tavern in the roughest part of town, then expect it to have a fair few npc's with the Tavern Brawler feat.

 

[ccooke]

Wait, what?

It goes like this.

By the basic improvised weapon rules, if an improvised weapon resembles an actual weapon you can treat it as an actual weapon. It is still, however, an improvised weapon.

Take this thought experiment involving a wizard with the Tavern Brawler feat (who therefore does not have proficiency with the Greatclub)

You pick up a broken wooden pillar and smash someone with it two handed. It's basically something a lot like a Greatclub, so the GM rules 1d8 damage, proficiency through Tavern Brawler. Easy.

So you take that pillar and you smooth off the splinters to make it less painful to hold, then you take it in two hands and you smash someone with it. Still looks a lot like a Greatclub, still gets you 1d8 damage and you still add proficiency because you have the Tavern Brawler feat.

Next you whittle a better handle. You heft it nicely with two hands and swing at someone with it, but the GM rules that it now doesn't just resemble a Greatclub, it is a Greatclub. Therefore you lose your proficiency bonus with it, because it is no longer an improvised weapon.

That would, to me, be a bad ruling. The problem is that I only see three ways this can go according to the rules as written:

1) Decide that any manufactured weapon can't be improvised, which means ignoring part of the basic improvised weapon rules.
2) Rule that improvisedness is a binary state that is somehow lost at some point, regardless of how much I find that silly (I'm sure there are people out there who are happy to rule this way, and that's fine. I'm just saying that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to not want to rule this way, too)
3) Do something to the way Tavern Brawler interacts with weapons which is effectively a houserule.

As you can see, I favour approach 3.